Infrastructure Optimization for IT

For many, IT is a game of chasing and fixing problems. Run out of storage?
Buy a new disk. Apps too big? Get more servers. The result is often too much
hardware and software from too many vendors with too many configurations. Infrastructure
optimization aims to alleviate those headaches.

For years, vendors like IBM Corp. and integrators like Electronic Data Systems
Corp. have gone into large shops and holistically examined their IT systems.
They would offer a plan to simplify, create efficiencies and make them more
productive. In the last two or three years, Microsoft has also entered the game
with its infrastructure optimization (IO) model, a system for analyzing the
state of your shop, devising plans to make it more efficient and to better support
business goals.

The IO model encompasses Core Infrastructure, Business Productivity Infrastructure
and Applications Platform Infrastructure (which also covers application development).
The most mature model is Core IO, which also looks at identity management, device
(desktop and servers) management, security and networking, data protection,
and IT and security processes.

IO isn't just about technology meeting business goals. It's also IT processes.
Part of this is going back through concepts like Information Technology Infrastructure
Library (ITIL). Microsoft embraces this idea through the Microsoft Operations
Framework (MOF), which is part of the IO message. "It's not that you get
some product and magically you're there. It's a combination of people, processes
and technology," says Samm Distasio, director, worldwide IO strategy, enterprise
priorities for Microsoft.

The
Microsoft Operations Framework

Infrastructure
Optimization is linked to the Microsoft Operations Framework
(MOF), which is a model established to ensure that Microsoft-based
systems are manageable, reliable and supportable. The MOF
itself is based on the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL).

MOF is similar to Carnegie-Mellon's Capability Maturity Model
Integration, which focuses on organizations, processes and
people. Instead of hardware and software, MOF seeks to align
IT services and people with key business goals. Taken together,
the two models cover the major issues an IT shop must deal
with.

What Exactly Is IO?
Infrastructure optimization seeks to define the maturity of an IT organization.
By mature, Microsoft means modern, advanced and effective. Microsoft isn't the
first to come up with this concept. In his report "Optimization Model Structures
Sales Efforts," Directions on Microsoft analyst Paul DeGroot describes
how Carnegie-Mellon University devised such a model in 2002. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) has a four-stage maturity model of its own, and Gartner
Inc. has embarked on a similar effort.

"The general concept of software maturity behind Microsoft's version of
IO is reasonably mature. I traced it back to work done at Carnegie-Mellon in
the early '90s or late '80s (when it was called the Capacity Maturity Model),
although Microsoft attributes IO to a different origin. Just shows that great
minds were thinking alike around that time," says DeGroot. He goes on to
explain that the Carnegie-Mellon model focuses largely on the processes of planning
and development while Microsoft emphasizes using software.

Microsoft didn't develop its IO model in a vacuum, and fully credits its predecessors.
Besides working with Gartner Inc. and MIT, Microsoft polled more than 10,000
customers to build the model. According to "Infrastructure Optimization
at Microsoft," the company's white paper on the topic, "61 percent
[of companies] are in a manual, reactive state of IT management and maintenance,
and 36 percent have limited automation and minimal process and knowledge capture
of the environment (still very reactive). Only 3 percent can be characterized
as being driven by a well-managed, high-security infrastructure managed by a
set of policies and operations with a current state of technology deployment
and implementation."

[Click on image for larger view.]

IO is neither a product nor a panacea. "It's only a model, and a very
theoretical one at that," says DeGroot. "An organization needs to
build its own infrastructure model and then fill it with data, so coming up
with a really optimum model that tracks the right inputs and collects the right
data will probably take years and a lot of ongoing maintenance. Although I think
it's a useful concept for customers, I wouldn't trust any particular vendor
to nail it down."

For some, it takes a while to get their arms around the IO concept. "Microsoft
can so quickly overdo something that you lose sight of the useful principles
behind it. It took me at least a year, including some fairly intensive research,
to cut through it," DeGroot says.

Others find the model clear and straightforward, even if it's a tough sell
initially.

"I'm skeptical of these theoretical models, but this [IO] was the first
time I said to myself, 'This is the way I think IT is doing their business today,'"
says Gunnar Thaden, CIO of TUV NORD Group.

The difference is the rigor and concreteness of the IO model -- particularly
the extensive questionnaires that form the basis of any IO analysis, Thaden
says. "IT people are very fact based. [With IO] you had a lot of questions
you had to answer very concretely," he explains.

The Four Stages of IO
The four levels of IO are Basic, Standardized, Rationalized and Dynamic. A company
moves up a level when they've installed and use the technologies that support
the functions and business objectives the model calls for in each level.

The
4 Stages of IO

You can judge
the maturity of an IO initiative by looking at it in four
stages: Basic, Standardized, Rationalized and Dynamic.

Basic: Where most IT organizations start and, unfortunately,
where many remain. A Basic-level IT shop adopts technology
on an as-needed and ad hoc basis. When a Basic shop runs out
of processing power or storage space, it tosses in a new server
from the lowest-priced vendor of the week.

A Basic shop will often buy software based on price and features,
and not consider how applications integrate with its infrastructure
or fit in with a long term architectural vision. Any management
is done manually. Microsoft calls a Basic IT shop a "cost
center." Some are better termed "sink holes."

Standardized: Although only one level above Basic,
Standardized is a huge step up. As the name indicates, thought
goes into buying products that adhere to industry standards
and fit into an overall vision of how things ought to work
together. Standardized shops are managed, but they lack the
automation of higher-level shops. While a standardized IT
shop is still a cost center, Microsoft labels it a "more
efficient" cost center.

Rationalized: Here IT systems are managed, well-automated
and the company has gone through the process of consolidating
key pieces like servers and storage. IT is considered a strategic
asset and a "business enabler."

Dynamic: In this upper-level stage, IT is a "strategic
enabler" and management is "fully automated."

The hierarchy of these levels isn't meant to suggest that
all companies should strive to hit the Dynamic level. It's
too expensive for some smaller companies, and not worth going
beyond Standardized. In short, IO makes IT more efficient,
more productive and able to generate real business value.

Here's how it works: Often working with a partner or a Microsoft rep, IT goes
through an elaborate questionnaire. The answers help drive the goals. Microsoft
then maps the objectives to its own products, and offers an array of choices
to help reach those goals. In Security and Networking (part of the Core IO model),
for example, there are five Microsoft products a Standardized company might
use. There are nine for a Dynamic company.

Even if you don't invite Microsoft or a partner in for an IO consultation,
you still can tackle the fundamentals. Here's an approach suggested by analyst
firm IDC in a paper published by Microsoft:

"Minimize the number of configurations, such as locked down for temp workers
and more open for top execs, and only create additional PC images when absolutely
necessary. Related to this, IDC in general recommends locking down PCs so end
users can't make changes, and centralizing system updates and changes. Further,
these PCs should be managed by a directory; in Microsoft's case, let's make
that Active Directory, not just for authentication, but to also use Group Policy
for desktop and software configurations."

IDC also advises reducing the use of directories from third-party app companies,
and using one systems management tool. Microsoft naturally promotes its own
tools, Systems Management Server and Microsoft Operations Manager -- now System
Center Operations Center 2007 -- as leading to higher levels of maturity.

The ROI of IO
There are two ways IO can produce a positive return on investment (ROI). One
is the classic approach of saving money by building efficiency.

In the Microsoft white paper, IDC claims that a PC costs $1,320 to support
in a Basic IT shop, $580 in a Standardized shop, and $230 in a Rationalized
shop. It doesn't offer figures for Dynamic shops. IDC maintains that overall
IT costs will fall 15 percent as shops move from Basic to Standardized, and
10 percent as they move from Standardized to Rationalized.

The real goal of IO, however, isn't reducing costs. As you move up the ladder,
there's less focus on spending and more on IT creating business value. There's
good news here -- IT is already contributing to the business. IDC surveyed business
managers at 413 companies and found 70 percent believe that IT has spurred innovation.
Unfortunately, only one in five business managers find the IT folks themselves
to be "initiators in business strategies."

Reader ResponseRedmond solicited opinions about IO from our readers. We found that most
IT pros weren't aware of the model, but there was more than a bit of skepticism.

"It seems to me that many companies bought into [Software Assurance]
only to find release after release delayed or not released at all, giving Microsoft
a lot of money for not delivering," says Les Newport, an application developer
and Redmond reader. "Now Microsoft wants us to trust them to take
an objective and holistic view of our shop? Are you kidding me?"

Other IT pros question the objectivity. "I would feel much more comfortable
with IO if an independent lab performed the service. Or at least [evaluated]
the IO service for conflict of interest issues," says Redmond reader
Dan Dionne.

Another anonymous reader echoed Dionne's thoughts: "I can really see Microsoft
coming in and saying, 'Yup, you need an Oracle database, running on Sun boxes
under Linux, with SAP as your enterprise software."

DeGroot understands these concerns, but also sees Microsoft's point of view.

"Theoretically, [IO] embraces all of them [other models and vendors].
Microsoft did some work last spring that made the APO [Application Platform
Optimization] and BPIO [Business Productivity Infrastructure Optimization] models
less Microsoft-specific," he says.

"There's a terribly important psychological reality here -- if you get
to ask the questions, you can control the customer's agenda," DeGroot continues.
"I think customers need to fill in the blanks themselves. I wouldn't count
on Microsoft or any other vendor to deliver a completely optimized infrastructure,
or to assess competitor capabilities accurately, even if they tried."

Some IT professionals, like TUV NORD's Thaden, heartily embrace the IO concept.
In looking through Microsoft's case studies, it's clear that IO doesn't have
to entail sweeping, immediate changes. Much of the IO work -- like standardizing
and automating desktop image rollout -- is done piecemeal. This was the case
with Austar, an Australian TV company with more than 800 employees.

For the National Water Commission in Mexico, the problem was a mix of IT infrastructures,
each built by local offices. The infrastructure optimization answer was to centralize
and standardize around Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft server applications
such as Exchange and ISA. The Water Commission now expects to reduce infrastructure
maintenance costs by more than 70 percent.

An
IO Believer: The TUV NORD Story

TUV NORD Group
has been heavily reliant on Microsoft technologies since 1999.
The 150-year-old German technical services provider handles
safety issues like registering motor vehicles and issuing
driver's licenses. Because of its long history with Microsoft,
TUV is well-suited to do long-term measurements on the effectiveness
of Microsoft software and the IO model.

TUV's need for IO-style computing began back in 1999 when
the company acquired two organizations, one used Banyan Vines
and the other used Windows NT. TUV determined its best move
was to transition the whole organization to Windows 2000 and
strive for a more homogenous environment.

The move to Windows 2000 was a great success. TUV's next
major step was to implement the Systems Management Server
(SMS) suite in 2002. This was part of its strategy of using
Microsoft desktop, productivity, server, messaging, database
and management tools instead of individual best-of-breed selections.

"We have totally homogenized our infrastructure. It
is more or less a 100 percent Microsoft infrastructure,"
says Gunnar Thaden, CIO for TUV NORD. "The key is not
Microsoft. The key is that we have concentrated [our systems]."

The major exception is SAP, which is now accessed via Duet,
an Office/SAP interface.

Thaden finds the single vendor approach is easier and more
comfortable to manage.

"In my early days, I worked as an IBM MVS programmer.
That was the good old times. It was working with one single
administration."

TUV also moved to Windows Server, and implemented Active
Directory across the whole enterprise in 2002. At the same
time, it moved to a single configuration management and software
distribution solution.

Much of the motivation for TUV's drive to IO was economic.
After concentrating on a single vendor, TUV studied total
cost of ownership and found it was falling.

"In 2006, we did another measurement, and saw a dramatic
reduction in costs," Thaden says. "We don't talk
about cost reduction now. We only talk about what is our value
for the business."

TUV has moved steadily through the IO maturity stages. In
1999, the company was at the Basic level. It moved to the
Standardization level in 2002, and achieved the Rationalized
level in 2006.

TUV takes a unique approach to desktop software deployment
and imaging, which is part of the IO model. "[About]
90 percent of laptop error rates have to do with disk crashes.
When we lose a laptop, our technicians lose a whole day,"
Thaden says. "Disk crashes don't just happen in one second.
Through SMS and Vista, our service line can send an alarm
to the user that the disk will crash in two days. Then they
send out a new laptop before the old one fails."

TUV also lets users know how their machines are doing. Through
Vista gadgets, like speed measurement, both users and IT can
see their PC's status. "Through all these automatic tools,
we measure the log entries, RAM and disk, so the user knows
his PC is OK," he says.

One of TUV's latest IO-centric stratagems concerns SharePoint.
"We have terabytes of SAP data, which we now combine
with the unstructured data, such as Excel, Word, PowerPoint
and Outlook. With SharePoint 2007 and SAP records management,
we can combine those," Thaden says.

TUV's other big initiative is Unified Communications, which
it began moving to two-and-a-half years ago. Now TUV is also
looking at Service Desk, which is in beta. If this is better
than HP OpenView, TUV may well make that move as well.
Even though Microsoft itself only hovers between Standardized
and Rationalized, TUV believes it has already achieved the
Dynamic level. "We still have a roadmap. We have not
proven it, but I am 100 percent sure that we are already Dynamic,"
Thaden says.

As a Dynamic enterprise, the IO has fundamentally changed
the way TUV thinks about IT.

"2006 was the last time I talked about cost reduction.
I no longer talk about costs with my board, customers or whatever.
It is all about bringing business value," Thaden says.
"My dream is that after Dynamic is the level where we
are proactive instead of being reactive." -D.B.

Third-Party Play
Microsoft takes great pains to make sure the IO model is as vendor-neutral as
possible. All of the up-front questions are about general technologies, not
specific products. After setting goals, they're mapped to actual products, most
often from Microsoft.

"Never do you get to the point of 'this is the right or wrong product.'
You look at the capability that the infrastructure or platform could provide.
Of course, at some stage we'll talk to you about what Microsoft has, but that
isn't the point up until that stage," says Simon Witts, corporate vice
president of Microsoft's enterprise and partner group.

ISVs can be part of the plan. Although there's no formal program, Microsoft
works with key software vendors and guides them on how to make their products
part of the IO ecosystem. There are specific categories that third parties fit
into, as well.

Microsoft's Own Dog Food
Microsoft is also recruiting VARs, resellers and systems integrators. Microsoft
works with its own partners, as well as large systems integrators such as Hewlett-Packard
Co. and EDS, which each have IO-style models. Using more than one advisor leads
to a fuller, more-impartial view of the overall infrastructure.

Microsoft uses IO itself to drive both product and IT strategy. Using IO to
examine its product line, says DeGroot in his IO report, Microsoft saw some
holes and filled them by acquiring companies like DesktopStandard for Active
Directory management, AssetMetrix for asset management and Softricity for application
virtualization.

Microsoft also applies IO to its own IT organization that supports some 80,000
employees scattered from Redmond to Europe, China and beyond. Much of Microsoft's
own IO work centers around imaging.

"Microsoft IT has built a number of tools to apply to all images at once,
regardless of hardware, enabling it to apply software updates to images whenever
necessary. Microsoft IT recognizes that there may be cost savings by reducing
to one image, but it maintains that smart use of its five images saves costs,"
says the company in its IO white paper.

IO is a rich and detailed model, and well worth the time it takes to fully
understand it. Don't go with a single source for any maturity model, say the
experts, and don't automatically believe every positive ROI model thrown your
way. Be realistic about what you can achieve.

More Information

An Array of Optimization Models and Services

CMMI: Carnegie-Mellon is one of the earliest developers of
an IT maturity model. Its model, devised by the university's Software Engineering
Institute, is called CMMI
or the Capability Maturity Model Integration (originally just Capability
Maturity Model). On the surface, this model is more complex than Microsoft's
software-driven model, as Carnegie-Mellon deals largely with organizations,
processes and people.

MIT: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center
for Information Systems Research has a four-level IT operating model. While
Microsoft's IO moves in a linear fashion from lowest to the most advanced level,
MIT's model bounces around. Here are the levels of the MIT model:

Diversification: This is quite similar to Microsoft's Basic level with minimal
integration and standardization.

Unification: Here there is both maximum integration and standardization.

Coordination: This level has great integration, but poor standardization.

EDS: EDS, which has a long history of IT consulting and implementation,
has an array of services under its Infrastructure
Services umbrella; from Advanced Meter Infrastructure Solution (which focuses
on automating current manual processes) to Data Center Modernization and Workplace
Productivity.

HP: HP has a rich set of offerings called HP
Infrastructure Services that include desktop lifecycle, printing, networking,
SOA, mobility, consolidation and more. -D.B.